The defendant shall be innocent.

The representative director D of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) of the facts charged was manufactured and installed, from Jun. 23, 2009 to Oct. 10, 2009, the amount of KRW 281 million to the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) located in Gun E (hereinafter “F”). However, the amount was not paid.

D With F's default and the auction procedure for the factory was in progress, D filed a lien report on the instant machinery and equipment with the Cheongju District Court, which was the cause of jurisdiction around December 18, 2009, and therefore, it was possible to acquire possession and exercise the lien.

On February 2, 2010, the Defendant, from F, awarded a bid for auction to D, “F will be awarded a bid for the instant machinery installed in the Company, but will pay KRW 281 million to D within three months following the bid for auction, if the Defendant would bring the instant machinery and equipment installed in the Company, or make it possible to use the said machinery and equipment by exercising the right of retention.

“.......”

However, the Defendant, without any particular property or income, was bearing the obligation equivalent to KRW 400 million, and all the bid price of KRW 200 million for the auction of F was awarded by G, and after receiving the bid of F in the auction, the “animalbel” that the Defendant tried to conduct research and development using the instant machinery and equipment was extremely unlikely to be successful, and the research and development would have been continuously spent without profits until the success of the research and development.

As agreed with D, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price for the instant machinery and equipment.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim C, renounced the acquisition of possession of the instant machinery and equipment at that time, and did not pay the price.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim C, acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 281 million.

Judgment

1. Fact-finding is examined by the court of this case.